High Intensity Interval Training Versus Higher Volume, Lower Intensity Training for Fat Loss
I receive daily alerts from Google whenever high intensity training is mentioned on a new web page, blog entry, or news article, and over the past several months more and more of these have been about high intensity interval training, rather than high intensity strength training. Every personal trainer and fitness “expert” out there with a web site seems to feel the need to put their 2 cents in, typically comparing the effectiveness of the two for fat loss. What nobody seems to be challenging is the belief that these things are relatively effective for fat loss at all.
Which is better for fat loss, high intensity interval training or higher volume, lower intensity steady-state training?
The answer is neither – both are a waste of time. While high intensity interval training wastes less of your time than higher volume, lower intensity aerobics, neither burn enough calories to be worth doing for that purpose. At most, the net calorie expenditure for either might be as high as one or two hundred, but probably much less (net calorie expenditure equals total calories expended during the activity minus resting energy expenditure – the amount you would have burned had you been relaxing with a good book instead). Some “experts” claim high intensity interval training is better because of the additional calories burned post exercise due to excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), however this amounts to very little.
If, as Doug McGuff, MD and others have pointed out, we were so metabolically inefficient as to burn so many calories during such activities, we would never have survived as a species.
A far more effective way to create a calorie deficit which takes up none of your time and will not cause overuse injuries or joint problems is to simply consume fewer calories, and if you’re really serious about losing fat changing your diet to more closely approximate the one our paleolithic ancestors lived on – moderate to high proteins and fats, and low to moderate carbohydrates, mainly from leafy and fibrous vegetables and smaller amounts of fruits and nuts.
As for exercise, rather than waste your time performing an activity for the sake of burning calories, your workouts should focus on building lean body mass, which will increase the calories you burn all the time. It has been estimated that every pound of muscle gained burns up to an additional 35 calories per day (1, 2) however some of this increase may be due to an increase in metabolic rate of all resistance-trained muscle as a result of greater protein turnover, rather than just due to the new tissue, as Wayne Westcott, PhD suggests (3).
The amount of exercise required to stimulate significant increases in muscle mass is far less than most people believe. While some people may do better with somewhat more or less volume and frequency depending on their genetics, most people will get best results training as little as once or twice weekly, with workouts that may last as little as 15 minutes depending on their circumstances. Someone working out in a busy gym may require more time if they have to wait for equipment, but if training during off-peak hours or at a private training studio or home gym where there is no wait a typical high intensity training workout will require very little time.
Most high intensity training workouts consist of one set per exercise of twelve or fewer exercises. More traditional Nautilus-style high intensity training routines which typically included slighly higher volume, usually 12 to 16 exercises (4 to 6 for the lower body, 8 to 10 for the upper body and trunk) can be completed in under 25 minutes if there is little or no rest between exercises. Contemporary high intensity training routines, such as Mike Mentzer’s consolidated Heavy Duty routines, John Little’s Max Contraction routines and Doug McGuff’s “Big Five” routine consist of less than half that volume, and can be completed in less than 15 minutes even without rushing, and in some cases under 10 depending on the duration of the exercises and rest intervals.
While people who get their information from and believe the popular bodybuilding magazines and web sites tend to be skeptical of the effectiveness of such brief and infrequent workouts, I have had new clients gain 10 pounds of muscle in a few months following such routines, and one client gained 8 pounds of muscle in under a month. This kind of muscle gain would result in a greater increase in metabolic rate than if one performed several bouts of high intensity interval training or several hours of higher volume, lower intensity “cardio” every day.
I currently train about once every 5 days, or about six times per month, for a total of less than one hour and 30 minutes of exercise per month, less than 18 hours total in a year. I am able to maintain a relatively low bodyfat level with just this and following a moderately-strict, paleo-style diet. Most of my clients train once or twice weekly for about 20 minutes per workout, totalling between an hour and 20 minutes to two hours and forty minutes cumulative training time per month, and when they follow a similar diet they are able to lose a significant amount of fat per week. One woman went from 245 to 117 in a little over a year (lost over 128 pounds of fat) and one man went from 254 to 182 (lost over 72 pounds of fat) in a little under a year – neither spent more than three hours a month working out. In 2005 I trained a man who went from 310 pounds to the mid 220’s in about half a year with only one weekly workout consisting of one set each of only six exercises. At the time we were using SuperSlow repetitions, 10 seconds lifting, 10 seconds lowering, for 4 to 8 repetitions, or about 1:20 to 2:40, and rushed between exercises. His workouts typically lasted around 15 minutes, and consisted of the following exercises:
P. G.’s SuperSlow Workout
- Stiff-Legged Deadlift
- Hammer Strength Leg Press
- Hammer Strength Pulldown
- Hammer Strength Chest Press
- Hammer Strength Low-Row
- Cybex Plate-Loaded Calf Raise
Over a six month period he lost over 80 pounds of fat with a total workout time of less than seven hours.
Drew Baye
I used a similar workout, with the addition of occasional static holds for biceps and triceps, also training once weekly, when preparing for a natural bodybuilding competition. With high intensity strength training and diet alone – absolutely no “cardio” – I was able to get down to below 4% body fat (based on three-site skinfold, BEI and Futrex Infrared).
Not only is high intensity interval training and higher volume, lower intensity “cardio” not necessary for the average person to lose fat, it is not even necessary to get down to extremely low body fat levels as long as one is eating properly and doing high intensity strength training.
While the time investment for high intensity interval training is similar to high intensity strength training, the return on investment from high intensity strength training is so much greater it is still the obvious choice. In addition to stimulating comparable metabolic improvements, high intensity strength training also improves muscular strength and size – raising basal metabolic rate causing greater calorie expenditure 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is also far safer than typical interval training activities such as sprinting, cycling, rowing, stair-climbing, etc.
The whole debate about what kind of “cardio” is better for fat loss is pointless, because no type of “cardio” is efficient for that purpose.
If you want to lose fat, or stay lean if you already are, focus on eating properly and increasing your metabolic rate through high intensity strength training.
References:
1. Campbell, W., Crim, M., Young, V. and Evans, W. 1994. Increased energy requirements and changes in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60: 167-175.
2. Pratley, R., Nicklas, B., Rubin, M., Miller, J., Smith, A., Smith, M., Hurley, B., and Goldberg, A. 1994. Strength training increases resting metabolic rate and norepinephrine levels in healthy 50 to 65 year-old men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 76: 133-137.
3. Why the Confusion on Muscle and Metabolism? by Wayne Westcott
Won’t need the book now then.
The book covers quite a bit more than the above post. If the above was all there was to it, I would have finished writing it months ago
Drew,
The link is wrong to Westcott’s article.
It should be http://www.ymcatwincities.org/assets/pdfs/aboutymcapdfs/why_the_confusion.pdf
Thought you would want to know.
Very interesting post. I have no long history of BB’ing. Instead I practiced martial arts (JKD, etc) at least 2 hrs per week, oftentimes 3-4 for many years. Not enough to be as skilled as I wished, but I came home from every workout utterly drained. Never did put any muscle on; although that wasn’t the goal, many people suggested that it would happen. Tried free weights using Bill Pear;s book, absolutely hated it, made no progress. Later, I followed Dr. Darden’s Bowflex plan for over a year, lost 30 lbs, added muscle(more than doubled ny initial strength levels). However, found myself getting ill every 3-5 months, to the point that I was too weak from colds, etc to train, just had no energy. Gained all my weight back, lost some (not all) of the strength gains. Found out that when I went to 1 Sunday afternoon workout(only), made the best gains. To the point that I actually had to re-check all of my logs and then verify that the Bowflex was not somehow “malfunctioning”. Dr. Darden has said/ suggested in print to reduce volume of work if not progressing, but I did not realize that I would be OK at 1X per week. Now I am following the Big 5, after reading Body By Science. At my age, 54, just needed more rest. Still trying to get 8 hrs sleep every night, hard! Now, about that diet. That is a whole other story, and for me the hardest part by far. A lifetime of poor eating wil take a long time to overcome,and will probably always be a battle. After stopping training, knee pain resumed. I am able, though, to do quality squats on the Bowflex Ultimate II, and knee pain is starting to go away again. Losing the excess baggage(I have a lot) will help even more. Good luck on your book Drew.
Hi Drew,
Great informative article once again. Your blog is the best as it’s very easy for the average person/Gym member to understand without all the pusedo science which is poluted everywhere! I always refer my clients to look up your Blog. Keep up the hard work on your book as it will be worthwhile!
Paul
Thanks Paul. I try to present everything as simply as possible, since my goal is for people to understand and be able to apply the information, not to impress people with a bunch of jargon or unnecessary technical details. Einstein said “make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler” and I think this is a pretty good approach with most things. Einstein also said something about any fool being able to make things seem more complex than they are, but that real genius lies in being able to make things simpler or easier for people to understand. Some “experts” have made a career out of taking things that should be simple and attempting to make them ridiculously and unnecessarily complex, seemingly for the purpose of having something to sell. They remind me of the saying, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”, and they certainly excel in bullshitting people.
Part of my goal in writing this book is to present relevant scientific and technical information in as simple and straightforward a manner as possible, so that anyone with at least a high school level understanding of physics and biology can easily understand and effectively apply the information. Readability, comprehension, and usability are my guidelines. It has to be easy to read, easy to comprehend, and immediately useful.
Lou, unfortunately, recovery slows down a bit with age, but on the positive side strength training is the closest thing we have to a fountain of youth, and as long as you keep it up and make sure to get adequate recovery between workouts you’re going to continue to feel and function better as you progress.
Drew,
Great post. I really enjoyed reading that. I am currently doing a six week case study on myself pertaining to training only once per week. I do a fully body HIT workout consisting of 12 exercises. Each routine takes me an average of about 25 minutes to complete for a total of just under 2 hours of training time per month. Before I was doing this twice a week, but never really feeling recovered. If you would like, I can post my results when I’m finished. I’ll also be posting them on my own site as well. Take care.
Blain
Thanks Joseph, I have fixed this. For some reason the “http:” part of the link wasn’t in there when I typed it.
Blain,
If you’re regularly feeling tired or fatigued and there haven’t been any changes in your sleep or diet that might account for it, overtraining is a strong possibility and the additional recovery time will probably help. The biggest mistakes most people make with their training are to do too much, too often, and most people go the opposite direction when progress starts to slow down and do longer, more frequent workouts. What the body really needs when that happens is more time between workouts for recovery and adaptation.
Drew,
I was wondering (since I can’t find for myself any credible literature pertaining to the subject) how long does it actually takes for a muscle to begin to lose size? I’m wondering because I’ve committed myself to training only one time per week for the next 6 weeks to see what results I come up with. If muscle does not lose size within a week long timespan, then training once a week would be considered ideal would it not? It would allow for proper compensation and full systemic recovery, along with an abundance of energy once it is time to train again. Any knowledge pertaining to this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again.
Blain
“one man went from 254 to 182 (lost over 72 pounds of fat) in a little under a year”
Wow, that is exactly what I want to do! I want to go from about 255 to somewhere around 175-185 (I don’t know what I’ll look like at a particular bodyweight, so I’ll see when I get there.) It’s good to know that someone else has done that, and without having to kill themselves in the gym. Of course, my main problem is diet. I just eat too much junk. Over the last couple of days, I’ve finally made the decision to abstain from my problem foods, rather than trying to “practice moderation.” I am so bad at that! LOL.
Hey thats a great article. I was talking with my wife today about how i am learning bodybuilding and diet training all over again. Your website has been helpful. I have trained under some greats,west side barbell,poliquin,and local bb champions. Now that i have a life and family i love spending time with and balancing playing music. i dont want to be in the gym as much,so i started training hit and reading Dr. Darden and the Nautilis bulletins i have learned alot,but i have alot more to learn. I was so used to eating chicken and rice all day and training for hours a week. Now i am fat and have to learn all over again. It sucks! I cant wait for your book i will buy it. Thanks man!
Drew,
I can’t help but comment on Wayne Wescotts paper. He apparently finds it to be more likely that “trained muscle” (what ever that is) increases it’s resting metabolic rate by 26% rather than each pound of added muscle mass requiring 35 Kcal per day. He is trying to reconcile the two studies results with Bouchards calculations. Wescott states that its hard to argue with Bouchards calculation, but I disagree. Its not so much the formula but the numbers that he plugs in which are based on assumptions that he makes without any supporting information. Bouchard is assuming that a 155 lb. man: has 40% (62 lbs)of his body weight in muscle mass; has a resting metabolic rate of 1600 Kcal/day; and his muscle mass contributes to 22% of the resting metabolic rate. Where does he get these values from? Are they averages taken from some study? Rules of thumb commonly used by “renowned exercise physiologists”? Make them up? I personally think he took results from other poorly done studies that showed only a 6 Kcal increase per pound of new muscle and back figured the above parameters to make his calculation come out to 6 Kcal. I am especially skeptical of his assumption that his muscle mass contributes 22% of resting metabolic rate. That really looks like he massaged that number to give him the result he wanted.
Jerry, those are all very good points, and I would not be surprised if that was the case with Bouchard. It wouldn’t be the first time an exercise physiologist tweaked things to get the numbers they wanted.
Regardless of the actual numbers, in the past 15 years I’ve trained hundreds of people who have lost fat and improved their body composition with strength training and diet alone where “cardio”, either with or without dieting, had previously failed them. If it was only me I might be inclined to just thank my parents for good genes and pity those who had to do “cardio” for fat loss, but it has worked for every person I have trained who has done it. The only ones who don’t lose fat are those who refuse to change poor eating habits.
I have also trained a few people who were eating well to begin with who made dramatic improvements in body composition just by adding high intensity training. One that comes to mind is a woman I trained several years back who had a nice figure to begin with thanks to a combination of good genetics (her parents and brother were all very fit) and good diet. Within a few weeks of high intensity strength training she was noticeably leaner and went from having a nice figure to having an incredible one.
Thank Darin, I hope you enjoy the book when it’s out.
Hey Drew,
I’m really looking forward to your new book. I read a few comments from people who advise against HIT and I hope you could respond to them. I’m hoping your book will respond to similar questions and comments as well. Here they are:
Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA and cell membranes.
International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates a repetition in mid-stroke. “When the weight on the bar exceeds the muscle’s ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it’s the musculotendinous junction.
Louie Simmons, well known coach to many elite-level power lifters finds that taking sets to failure “has an ill-effect on the central nervous system,” which delays recovery. Simmons is noted for producing scores of high-ranked lifters with relatively low-intensity training.
I know you’ve seen these comments in the past. Could you be kind enough to give a response to these comments?
Thanks
Great article Drew. As usual you nailed it.
I love this article. I have been reading your blogs for some time now and like everyone else, cannot wait for your book to come out, any estimation on its time of completion?
I have one other concern. I write meal plans for people and try to explain things to them as simple as possible, the goal being calorie defecit. I want to tell them to train high intensity and then work as hard on their diet as they did on their training. There is only one problem.
My roommate is the personal trainer for the gym and believes high volume training is the be all end all. Is there any resources besides your website that will help me convince him that the high volume high cardio workouts he is applying are not the best way?
Thanks for your time.
Jake
Jake, I recommend having your roommate read the book Body by Science by Doug McGuff, MD and John Little. It does an excellent job of explaining why brief, infrequent, high intensity strength training workouts are better than high volume, high frequency training, as well as why high intensity strength training is better for fat loss than “cardio”. John Little has also written several bodybuilding books which cover this, including his Max Contraction books, High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way, and The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer. Fred Hahn’s book Slow Burn is also a good one. If you visit some of the sites under the training links here you will find plenty of great sources of information on this.
Thanks for the quick response Drew. Good luck to you on the progression of your writings.
Hi just wanted to say totally argee with the whole eating properly as i think its 80% of the battle but for you to train only 6 times a months and have that physique you have to be gentically gifted which is not the case for most people
Not necessarily. Most people will get better results training twice weekly or less. The three biggest mistakes most people make with their training are training with too much volume, training too frequently, and not training hard enough. The majority of my clients are not what most people would consider genetically “gifted” physically, however they do very well using a similar volume and frequency of training.
I have addressed all of your questions in a new post. Q&A: Criticisms of Training to Failure
Hey Drew,
After reading Body by Science and now this post, im left with some questions.
If eating a lower calorie diet is the key to losing body fat, not “cardio” of a steady state manner (which i believe), or HIT not burning even as many calories as once was thought, than why move quickly between exercises during a HIT session? What makes the difference between taking enough time just to catch your breath, or waiting around for minutes on end before performing the next set of exercise?
If muscles at rest burn calories why the hustle in the gym?
thanks Drew
Dan Beitzel
Hey Dan,
Rushing between exercises is done for greater global metabolic conditioning rather than increasing calories burned. If fat loss is a higher priority than conditioning, more rest might be better as it would allow heavier weight to be used on subsequent exercises, which should stimulate greater muscle gains, resulting in a greater increase in resting metabolic rate.
Hi Drew cool site.. and what you write really makes a lot sense but i cant help wonder that maybe cardio is worth doing to really torch that body fat or thats how i think because thats what ive been told and all ive read im magazines for the last 20 years or so . i.e kinda brainwashed to think that way..
So a few questions if you dont mind?
1) A lot of people copy their idol(s) when training. For example i think Tito Ortiz is a great MMA fighter and if I watch him train he does martial arts, stength training and cardio. All this time i thought maybe he does the cardio to rid fat, but really after reading your article (and your article does make a lot of sense) i thought well maybe thats not right, so i think a lot of sports personalities do cardio primarily for endurance only and not for fat loss. Do you think thats a true statement?
2) How would you respond to guys like Craig Ballantyne (Turbulence Training) or Tom Venuto as they stress that cardio is great for fat loss and that one can do as much cardio as required to lose the fat. While Craig stresses strength training and HIT training after a workout? Is there any benefit to either routines.
3) Im trying to find a way to get out of that mindset that i dont need to do cardio and that if i correct my diet that will make more of a difference than 7 days of cardio or HIT training. Right i feel like im doing the 3×3 training 3 times a week, every other day taking the weekends off. But i really have to fight off the feeling that in the morning i need to do my 20 min HIT bodyweight training.
4) And lastly i have yet to read through diet aspect, but what are your thoughts on carb cycling. To be honest i read on musclehack.com the carb cycling routine and i have been doing it now for 2 weeks combined with your 3×3 training and its working like a charm.. although i havent lost any weight (scale weight) i can see a difference in the body composition, which is what i wanted and this also reinforces that im getting the body i want with ZERO cardio. But yet i still feel i need to do cardio.. its really strange…
Thanks for your help and look forward to reading your responses
Regards
Sonny
Sonny,
These are good questions, and I will respond to them in detail in a separate post. Here are the quick answers, though.
1. I think most athletes who perform “cardio” do so for both performance and because they believe it will help them get or stay lean.
2. They’re wrong. “Cardio” doesn’t burn as many calories as people like to believe, and makes very little difference in fat loss.
3. Drop the “cardio” for a few weeks and just do high intensity strength training and be strict with your diet. You’ll have a different mindset after seeing the results.
4. I think there is a benefit to taking in higher (but not high) carbs on workout days if a person feels it helps them put more effort into and recover more quickly from the workouts, but this is something individuals will have to experiment with to see how their body responds.
These numbers displayed on the screen of the cardio devices are what’s confusing people. When you read that you burnt 1,000 calories (that’s A LOT of cardio), it means that you burnt 200 more than the 800 you would have burnt sitting on your couch.
Drew
First off I am a big fan.It seems more and more people are advocating less volume and leaning towards mentzer’s consolidation routine. What are your thoughts on the routine and also his diet recommendations(60%carbs). Also I am 6′0 280 pounds and (not ripped by any means) I am trying my caloric needs on a daily basis, how can I figure this out.
Thanks in advance for any info.
David,
The ideal volume and frequency of training varies considerably between individuals as a result of genetics and environmental factors, and is something that everybody has to determine for themselves with a bit of trial and error.
I do not recommend any specific percentages of macronutrient intakes, since it can vary depending on goals and total calorie intake. For example, while your calorie intake would vary depending on whether you were trying to gain size or cut fat, your protein intake should be based on your lean body mass and not as a percentage of calories, and your fat and carbohydrate intake would depend on the balance of calories after protein needs have been met.
Read my post on Estimating Daily Calorie Expenditure for how to determine yours.
Blain,
This would depend on a lot of factors, but assuming normal use, no change in diet, etc. it would probably take several months without training before you would start to lose size. Definitely much longer than a week.
However, this doesn’t mean a week would be the ideal frequency. The ideal frequency varies between individuals, and depends on how the routine is set up as well, since local and systemic recovery may not be the same for a particular person. Ideally, you would want to train as frequently as you can without overtraining, although in most cases it is better to err on the side of more rest than less.